Gay Marriage Is Not the End of the World for Heterosexuals

It would seem that social media has given many protestors the appropriate vehicle to bash gay rights without ever having to leave their living room. With gay marriage now legalized in California, many are still on a rampage about how it is not only an affront to Christian beliefs but to the heterosexual world at large. Albeit that many believe the gay agenda is becoming more and more intrusive on the right for people to disagree with the lifestyle respectfully, America should really wake up and realize that gay marriage is not the end of the world for heterosexual life.

People and households vary in opinion when it comes to what the so-called “gay agenda” actually is. From business laws to educational pedagogy, many heterosexuals who do not agree with the lifestyle (while still respecting those who live it) say that it is unfair to force a lifestyle onto them, just as it is unfair to force a belief of straightness onto the gay community. Parents are speaking up saying that they find it a bit disturbing how their children are being exposed to orientation geared curriculums at grade school levels of education. Although many studies have shown that children are experiencing same-sex feelings at younger ages, parents are concerned that the discussion of one’s sexual orientation may be being talked about a tad bit too early for their little ones.

Many are wondering (both in and out of the gay community) if the victory bell rings for gay marriage because it represents the ability for two people who love each other (no matter the gender) to truly share their lives or does it ring as a step closer to pushing one’s lifestyle onto the masses? Ironically, the sentiment is the very same that pushed gay rights activism into the forefront of the millennium in the first place. Whereas gay couples simply want equal rights and the acceptance of the nation, heterosexual couples simply do not want to be forced into hiding their alternative view on the matter; not speaking for those who take their disagreements to the extreme and start hate campaigns and commit crimes of violence. Those particular people need a federal intervention with a long stint with the new Martha Stewart prison bar decorum.

For a heterosexual couple, gay marriage might offend their belief about what marriage is, where it comes from, and what it stands for. However, are the semantics of the word itself so important as to bar same-sex couples from using it to describe a federally appointed union? It can be assured that the end of the heterosexual world is not gay marriage. There are so many other things to fight about other than who someone chooses to sleep with or whom they fall in love with.

Gay marriage puts many people of the straight world on edge. Mostly due to the fact that there is a lack of understanding that it is quite possible for one person not to feel or think the way another person does. If two straight men were looking at a group of women, they are not guaranteed to be attracted to the same woman. In that particular exchange, it is simply a matter of a conversation about preference that leads to a non-volatile acceptance of disagreement; they agree to disagree, have a beer and get on with life. It is only when the preference deals with gender do people seem to have the harshest things to say.

Why can heterosexual people simply not agree and move on? Why are homosexual people still shocked and surprised when their straight counterparts do not see eye to eye with their lifestyle? The discussion between the LGBTQ community and the straight community should be one that promotes understanding before trying to be understood. There is nothing new in America about one group of people fighting for their right to be who they believe they were born to be. Conversely, there is nothing new about the other group of people who will stop at nothing to prove that they (those in gay relationships) are wrong.

Admittedly not all heterosexual people feel the same about homosexual life. Barbara Lace, a mother of two and a wife for over 15 years, says, “I fight and advocate for people to live the life they feel is necessary for them and their families. However, I don’t want to be looked at as a horrible human being simply because I may not agree. People don’t like that I put relish in my potato salad, that’s no reason to hate them because of it. They simply don’t eat my salad. If you don’t agree with gay marriage don’t be in one and the same can be said in reverse. Let’s just not bash either side in the process.”

Opinion by Danyol Jaye

Sources:
Facebook – Post Comments
Family Research Council- Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
Carm- Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals

At the heart of this article lies… well… a lie. That lie is found in the word used to describe gay people, “lifestyle”. So, is the gay “lifestyle” one of going to the beach on Sunday instead of church? No, the word, “lifestyle” when used in articles like this is a sneaky attempt by heterosexual that those gay people are just “choosing” to be gay. No sirree Bob, them gay people are just doing this to be different than us. Oh… and they are pushing that “lifestyle” on us… why can’t they just go back to the closet and let us pretend that they don’t exist?

Seriously, the moment someone uses the word “lifestyle”, you know that they are going to paint heterosexual people as being morally superior for having chosen to live a moral life… not like those who CHOSE a homosexual life.

So, as Pat Parker put it in her late ’70s poem,

“For Straight Folks, Who Don’t Mind Gays, But Wish They Weren’t So Blantant”

… Fact is, blatant heterosexuals are all over the place.
Supermarkets, movies, on your job, in church, in books, on television every day
day and night, every place-even- in gay bars and they want gay
men and woman to go and hide in the closet.

So to you straight folks I say, “Sure, I’ll go – if you go too”
BUT I’m polite so, after you.

This is a logical and laudable article. It would seem that what is called for is more civil dialogue, both sides teaching the other in an atmosphere of at least listening before uttering intractable positions. On the other hand many people say they are astounded at how quickly acceptance of gays’ right to marry has come about. Just look at the last decade, when the vast majority of Americans thought gay marriage was wrong, and then compare it to the fact that today a majority of Americans agree with same sex marriage. My point here is that the civil discussion, the attitude of listening to each other, and minds have been changed. We have in fact already had our civil discussions or discussions done in a civil manner and realized that gay marriage is not a threat to heterosexual marriage. No, what we’re seeing now with the continuing anti-gay responses to marriage, the intractable positions on both sides is the clean-up phase. These are the die-hards (on both sides) who vow to never agree. Does anyone think that once the Supreme courts did away with the bans against interracial marriage that everyone accepted it over night? I would think there would have been uncivilized rock throwing for years afterwards. It wasn’t that the vast majority didn’t already accept it when the Supreme Court made its ruling, it was exactly what we have now with SSM. There were people who thought and probably still believe that interracial marriage is an affront to them and their religion.